Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kit_the_Odd 09-29-07, 03:01 PM	I have a question. Is it possible for a wizard to scribe a scroll for a spell he can not cast? For example: 2nd level wizard is part of a group that defeats another wizard that had fireball in her spellbook. He can scribe that spell into his own spellbook after appropriate skill checks, right? So then he 'knows' the spell. The Scribe Scroll feat description says that he can scribe a scroll of any spell he knows. So is it possible for him then to scribe that spell from his spellbook and cast it from the scroll (after making any the caster level check)? I don't see anything that would make it against the RAW, although it does seem a bit against the spirit of the law. What brought this up was the idea that a bard or sorcerer could take a single level of wizard and use this method to pick up some of those spell that they don't want to learn (or aren't on their spell list), but would like to have handy. If there is something in the rules that disallows this, or if I decide it is just stretching things too far, is there some other method for a sorcerer or bard to increase their spells known and/or spell-list? Thanks
PenderGrass 09-29-07, 03:47 PM	From the SRD - Magic Item Creation (Scrolls): The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed* (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself. Likewise, a material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell**, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.) *To scribe the scroll, it must be prepared (or available) to cast. **Writing the scroll is essentially the same as casting the spell. So, to answer your question - no, it is not possible to scribe a scroll simply because it is a spellbook that belongs to the wizard in question. :dragon: ****
Puca 09-29-07, 04:16 PM	Yeah, but you can work with others, right? One person can provide the feat (your wizard in this case) and another could provide the spell. So while your hypothetical of “knowing the spell” wont work because you need to have it available, not just know it, the answer to your question is still yes. Now, as for a bard or sorcerer, yes, they could dip into wizard and get access to spells that way, but they could motre easily get access to those spells another way. If you are paying someone to cast the spell for you, you might be better off just buying the scroll you need and keeping your caster levels.
PenderGrass 09-29-07, 05:14 PM	Yeah, but you can work with others, right? No. It specifically states the creator of the scroll must have the spell prepared (or readied as a sorcerer, etc.). :dragon: ****
Nom 09-29-07, 05:28 PM	He can scribe that spell into his own spellbook after appropriate skill checks, right?That's a grey area in the rules. PH pg 179 does not explicitly prevent a caster copying a spell that is of too high a level to cast. So then he 'knows' the spell. The Scribe Scroll feat description says that he can scribe a scroll of any spell he knows. So is it possible for him then to scribe that spell from his spellbook and cast it from the scroll (after making any the caster level check)?Pender's handled this: he can't prepare the spell so he can't create the scroll. What brought this up was the idea that a bard or sorcerer could take a single level of wizard and use this method to pick up some of those spell that they don't want to learn (or aren't on their spell list), but would like to have handy.A sorcerer or bard (or wizard) could just buy scrolls or wands. The game assumes that they will do this. However, their ability to use such items is still limited to spells on their class list (UMD notwithstanding). Yeah, but you can work with others, right? One person can provide the feat (your wizard in this case) and another could provide the spell.It specifically states the creator of the scroll must have the spell prepared (or readied as a sorcerer, etc.).Puca is correct. It is explicitly stated that the "creator" must have the spell prepared, and it is also explicitly stated that there can be multiple "creators" who together provide the requirements. The only specific link is that the guy who provides the XP sets the caster level. So while your hypothetical of “knowing the spell” wont work because you need to have it available, not just know it, the answer to your question is still yes.Not quite. The answer is still "it's the wrong question". The sorc or bard can just buy a scroll, or if they have the Scribe Scroll feat and know someone with the spell, create one. Heck, an arcane caster with Scribe Scroll can help create a divine scroll, assuming the other guy provides the spell. But just because you can help create the item doesn't mean you can use it.
Kit_the_Odd 09-29-07, 05:29 PM	Thanks. I looked in the DMG under the scrolls section, but totally forgot to look in the Creating Magic Items section - and there it was.:banghead:
PenderGrass 09-30-07, 03:19 AM	I would point out that although creating magic items with multiple sources for the spell prerequisites is fine and dandy for most things - scrolls are another matter. It is one of the few items that can be backwards-engineered. In other words, unlike a potion of heroism, a scroll with heroism can actually be transferred into a wizard's spell book. Thus allowing the wizard to use it over and over and even make more scrolls from it. Therefore, despite the rules to the contrary, I would suggest that a DM examine the possibilities here very closely. If the scriber can't cast the spell, how can that spell be written? And even unwritten to be placed into another spell book? Multiple creators of scrolls should all share the ability to cast the spell being written, at the very least. This may not be RAW, but it definitely maintains more of the game spirit and magical workings in my mind. :dragon: ****
runestar 09-30-07, 03:32 AM	If the scriber can't cast the spell, how can that spell be written? And even unwritten to be placed into another spell book? What the heck are you talking about? Copying a spell into a spellbook has nothing to do with casting it...:confused:
Khadmus 09-30-07, 05:34 PM	Indeed, "Scribe" has a special meaning in D&D (craft) and should not be used to refer to copying spells into spellbooks. I'd say go for it; spending money in advance shouldn't be too problematic. In fact, I think that it could make for a few good plot hooks.
runestar 09-30-07, 09:05 PM	Indeed, "Scribe" has a special meaning in D&D (craft) and should not be used to refer to copying spells into spellbooks. I'd say go for it; spending money in advance shouldn't be too problematic. In fact, I think that it could make for a few good plot hooks. That might be problematic - a 1st lv wizard cannot cast 2nd lv spells, but can scribe scrolls of 2nd lv spells to cast (albeit with a chance of failure). Though I am fine with that, since I use the FR bonus eq rules, which lets my wizard start with 6 1st lv scrolls and 1 2nd lv scroll at 1st lv...:P
PenderGrass 10-01-07, 01:35 AM	What the heck are you talking about? Copying a spell into a spellbook has nothing to do with casting it...:confused: That is the point. Step 1. PC finds an item/person/etc. with a spell he doesn't have. Step 2. PC uses scribe scroll to write the scroll for this unknown spell. Step 3. PC uses the found item's/person's/etc. spell power to complete the creation of this scroll. Step 4. PC now uses the newly created scroll to transfer spell into his spell book. Summation: PC used his scribe scroll feat to circumvent actually needing to know the spell to create the scroll and has actually been able to learn the spell just by having scribe scroll. Or, in other words, does it really make sense that a wizard that has no clue how to write a spell, can just take an item, "inject" it into a scroll he has scribed, and then take that scroll and transfer it over to his spell book and voila! now he knows everything about it? It may make sense to some, but not to me. If you don't know the spell, you can't scribe a scroll for it. :dragon: ****
runestar 10-01-07, 02:47 AM	Or, in other words, does it really make sense that a wizard that has no clue how to write a spell, can just take an item, "inject" it into a scroll he has scribed, and then take that scroll and transfer it over to his spell book and voila! now he knows everything about it? Correction - he is unable to cast said spell, rather than being unable to scribe it into his spellbook. Treat say, scorching ray as a scientific formula for creating an atomic bomb. The 1st lv wizard lacks the know-how on how to interpret it and use it (ie: he is not high enough lv to prepare and memorize said spell). He can easily take hold of the formula by downloading it from the net or copying it from someone else (in game terms, copying from another source). So my answer to your question would be a resounding "YES!!!".:)
Nom 10-02-07, 09:51 AM	That is the point. Step 1. PC finds an item/person/etc. with a spell he doesn't have. Step 2. PC uses scribe scroll to write the scroll for this unknown spell. Step 3. PC uses the found item's/person's/etc. spell power to complete the creation of this scroll. Step 4. PC now uses the newly created scroll to transfer spell into his spell book. Summation: PC used his scribe scroll feat to circumvent actually needing to know the spell to create the scroll and has actually been able to learn the spell just by having scribe scroll.Why not just skip all that rubbish and go... ? Step 1. PC finds an person with a spell he doesn't have. Step 2. PC learns the spell from said person, scribing it into the spell book. The only "bypass" available would be using a wand or spell-like ability to provide the spell pre-req for a scroll and thus create a scroll by which the caster can learn the spell. Note that it must be a spell trigger or SLA - command word or use activated items cannot provide spell pre-reqs. Further, the caster must have sufficient caster level to actually cast the spell if he knew it, because of the minimum CL restrictions on scrolls. Finally, the spell must count as "being on the caster's spell list", at which point the rules assume it's hardly inaccessible anyway and probably available much cheaper than the above rigmarole.
Puca 10-02-07, 11:46 AM	It is one of the few items that can be backwards-engineered. In other words, unlike a potion of heroism, a scroll with heroism can actually be transferred into a wizard's spell book. Thus allowing the wizard to use it over and over and even make more scrolls from it. Therefore, despite the rules to the contrary, I would suggest that a DM examine the possibilities here very closely.Cost to have someone cast Magic Missile for you: 10 gp Create a scroll of Magic Missile: cost 12.5 gp. And 1 xp Cost to use scroll to scribe it into my book: 100 gp Total: 122.5 gp and one xp. Cost to just copy Magic Missile from the guys damn book skipping the time and effort of making the scroll: 50 gp + 100 for scribing. 0 xp. Your “concern” here is about 17.5 gp. And because scroll-creation and for-hire casting both factor in caster-level, as soon as you try this with second-level spells, you actually lose money. Cost to have someone cast Scorching Ray for you: 60 gp Create a scroll of Scorching Ray: cost 75 gp plus xp. Cost to just copy it: 100 gp.
PenderGrass 10-02-07, 01:32 PM	As I stated beforehand, many of you will likely not get it or not be concerned about it. Many of you are focusing on comparison costs and so forth. Things I am totally unconcerned with. First, I don't see how a wizard that has absolutely no capability of writing a certain spell into his spell book can still write that spell onto a scroll just because he now possesses a wand with that spell. Second, as a DM, I rarely - if ever - just assume (as Nom does) that just because a spell is on the wizard's list that he has access to it (especially spells from other books other than the PHB). By requiring that a wizard has to know - and have that spell in his spell book - a spell to scribe a scroll from it, I am able to hand out a wand with that one spell on it without worry of it becoming a part of the wizard's regular list. Finally, regardless of all the alternative methods provided by others for how a wizard can gain that spell other than using a scroll-via-wand method, it is specifically the wand-to-scroll-to-spell-book method that I am concerned about. I don't care whether that spell is obtainable via other methods, I just don't agree that a scroll can be written if the wizard doesn't know how to already write the spell in the first place (i.e., in his spell book). Again, RAW may allow for this and some of you may find it logical to yourselves - I don't. :dragon: ****
Puca 10-02-07, 02:42 PM	First, I don't see how a wizard that has absolutely no capability of writing a certain spell into his spell book can still write that spell onto a scroll just because he now possesses a wand with that spell.Then why is your difficulty unique to scrolls? A scroll is not the same as “the spell all written out.” It isnt and set of instructions like would be in a spellbook. It is a magic item. It is a sheet of paper with symbols on it that together have harnessed magical power. If you can make potions that way, you should be able to make scrolls that way.* And, writing a spell into your book requires time, money, and a Spellcraft check. Not the ability to cast the spell in question. Second, as a DM, I rarely - if ever - just assume (as Nom does) that just because a spell is on the wizard's list that he has access to it (especially spells from other books other than the PHB). But the rule sort of do. There exist prices for copying a spell from other spellbooks. If I don’t want the wizard to have it in his book, then it isnt in the campaign. He wont find it in a wand, on a scroll, in a book, any where. I am able to hand out a wand with that one spell on it without worry of it becoming a part of the wizard's regular list.Well, one, the wizard has to be of the appropriate caster-level. You cant craft an item at less than the minimum caster-level. So, if I give a wand of Fireball with one charge to a level-one wizard, he still cant use that charge to make a scroll of fireball and add it to his book until hes level 5. If I want to let them have one shot with a very powerful spell, and never want to see it again, there are plenty of ways I can do it. *Im not particularly fond of the "joint creation" rules at all. The thread isnt about me though.
runestar 10-02-07, 09:48 PM	First, I don't see how a wizard that has absolutely no capability of writing a certain spell into his spell book can still write that spell onto a scroll just because he now possesses a wand with that spell. You can't actually. Or at least I have always thought that you are not technically casting the spell you activate from a wand. For example, it cannot be counterspelled. So my understanding was that wands could not be used to supply the spellcasting needed to qualify for a certain item creation process...:confused:
weasel0 10-02-07, 10:10 PM	Yeah, i'm a bit confused by that bit too.... A wand's spell power is from a spell(and exp) that has already been cast. I see no reason why a lowly wiz can't copy spells into his book that he can't cast. Okay so, he's got them. He still can't cast them. He can't memorize them to scribe scroll with. He'll need someone else everytime who's got the spell memorized to make a new scroll with until he's a the appropriate level and then any "problem" that is seen is moot anyway. He's simply a smart wizard(go figure :P ) by thinking ahead and making sure he's got spells he's gonna need eventually anyway. It's like a solder being given a tank. He's got the keys to drive it. He's got the training to use it. The tank has no gas. So, big deal if he's got it. He still can't use it till he gets some gas. What's a wizards gas? His level of spell casting. He's got the spell. He's got the training to utilize it(give him a scroll and he can finish it and cast{baring him lacking the appropriate relevant casting modifier}). He lacks in levels of spell casting.
runestar 10-03-07, 01:58 AM	A wand's spell power is from a spell(and exp) that has already been cast. I see no reason why a lowly wiz can't copy spells into his book that he can't cast. The only possible abuse I can think of is a specialist wizard copying all the spells of the school he plans to ban upon entering the red wizard prc at the next lv (since you are allowed to continue casting those spells you previously know, just that you cannot learn new ones). Thus, if you managed to copy all enchantment spells prior to banning enchantment, then said drawback is not really a drawback at all. Other than that, I don't see much problem.:)
Jhulae 10-03-07, 02:06 AM	The only possible abuse I can think of is a specialist wizard copying all the spells of the school he plans to ban upon entering the red wizard prc at the next lv (since you are allowed to continue casting those spells you previously know, just that you cannot learn new ones). Thus, if you managed to copy all enchantment spells prior to banning enchantment, then said drawback is not really a drawback at all. Other than that, I don't see much problem.:) One of the things Wizards can do is put a spell into their spellbook via a scroll. If you know you're no longer going to be able to learn new spells, it makes no sense *not* to buy as many scrolls from your upcoming prohibited school as possible. Of course, that's a lot of time writing them in the spellbook, not to mention the money spent, that it might be 1) not worth the money and/or 2) too much hassle in time to scribe/track down the spells.
Merestil Haye 10-03-07, 07:19 AM	First, I don't see how a wizard that has absolutely no capability of writing a certain spell into his spell book can still write that spell onto a scroll just because he now possesses a wand with that spell.The process of writing a scroll takes spell energy released in a controlled manner and, with appropriate actions, focusses it in such a way that it can be set down on paper. Those creatures who have learned this process are taught how to capture the energy from devices that release it as well as how to prepare and then release it. There is no reason to suppose that spell trigger devices cannot provide that energy. If you don't like the concept, then you'll houserule it out. But it is a houserule. Second, as a DM, I rarely - if ever - just assume (as Nom does) that just because a spell is on the wizard's list that he has access to it (especially spells from other books other than the PHB). By requiring that a wizard has to know - and have that spell in his spell book - a spell to scribe a scroll from it, I am able to hand out a wand with that one spell on it without worry of it becoming a part of the wizard's regular list.Let's look briefly at a bit of a costing. A wand of Fireball @ CL5 is valued at 11,250gp. No sane DM is going to be handing out a fully charged wand to 3rd and 4th level characters. If I'm going to give a Fireball wand to low-level PCs it's going to have a value of no more than about 600-700 gp.1,000 at max. That is no more than four charges. In order to scribe the spell into his book by going wand-scroll-book he has to pay to create the scroll at a cost of 187.5gp, 15 xp and the value of a single charge from the wand (225gp). He's then going to have to spend 300gp scribing the spell into his book. That's a cost of 712.5gp. Buying a prewritten scroll and scribing it costs 675gp. Finally, regardless of all the alternative methods provided by others for how a wizard can gain that spell other than using a scroll-via-wand method, it is specifically the wand-to-scroll-to-spell-book method that I am concerned about. I don't care whether that spell is obtainable via other methods, I just don't agree that a scroll can be written if the wizard doesn't know how to already write the spell in the first place (i.e., in his spell book). Again, RAW may allow for this and some of you may find it logical to yourselves - I don't.As I've already said, if you don't like it houserule it. Cost to have someone cast Magic Missile for you: 10 gp Create a scroll of Magic Missile: cost 12.5 gp. And 1 xp Cost to use scroll to scribe it into my book: 100 gp Total: 122.5 gp and one xp. Cost to just copy Magic Missile from the guys damn book skipping the time and effort of making the scroll: 50 gp + 100 for scribing. 0 xp. Your “concern” here is about 17.5 gp. And because scroll-creation and for-hire casting both factor in caster-level, as soon as you try this with second-level spells, you actually lose money. Cost to have someone cast Scorching Ray for you: 60 gp Create a scroll of Scorching Ray: cost 75 gp plus xp. Cost to just copy it: 100 gp.See, this is where I tak ethe Pendergrass line. The rules allow it, but the rules are silly. No wizard is going to let just anybody loose with his spellbook. He's going to require that the applicant be closely supervised at all times lest he spill ink or something stupid like that and damage the spellbook. Consequently I require that a wizard who wishes to be able to copy a spell from a wizard's spellbook earn that right. They have to roleplay out getting access to the spellbook, and that's not going to be a simple process. It's not in the rulebook, so I'm houseruling. I know that and admit it. Also, if a wizard is approached with the proposal that he supply spell energy for a scroll, expect to pay him the full price for him casting the spell, not the minimum CL. Thus if you approach a 5th level wizard to cast Magic Missile you pay 50gp, even if the scroll is at CL1. After all, his time is far more valuable than a neophyte wizards. (Again, most wizards in my game would charge more - the full price or 500gp, whichever is higher. Another houserule, I know.)
Puca 10-03-07, 11:29 AM	See, this is where I tak ethe Pendergrass line. The rules allow it, but the rules are silly. No wizard is going to let just anybody loose with his spellbook. He's going to require that the applicant be closely supervised at all times lest he spill ink or something stupid like that and damage the spellbook.I didnt state the circumstances under which a wizard would let you copy something from his book. He can (and should) do everything he can to protect it. That has no bearing on what I said. All I did was give the "typical" costs (from the SRD/PHB) for doing so. The "scribe a scroll:get the spell" issue that pendergrass was concerned about seems irrelevant to me when there are rules in place for accomplishing the same end more economically. Also, if a wizard is approached with the proposal that he supply spell energy for a scroll, expect to pay him the full price for him casting the spell. (Again, most wizards in my game would charge more - the full price or 500gp, whichever is higher. Another houserule, I know.)I would probably charge even more. You arent asking for a single casting. When you craft, he needs to be there all day, not just for 6 seconds or so. I think most powerful wizards would charge by the hour. And they probably place a premium on their time.
Merestil Haye 10-03-07, 05:25 PM	I would probably charge even more. You arent asking for a single casting. When you craft, he needs to be there all day, not just for 6 seconds or so. You are asking for a single casting, actually. Crafting an item requires that each prerequisite be provided once per day. As for the 500gp minimum - when you make a magic item, it takes 1 day per 1,000gp therefore the maker is "earning" 1,000gp per day. Zorgo takes the view that if he made the item himself he'd earn 1k but have expended 500gp - so he asks for the 500 he would have made in profit as his fee. Per day of creation, naturally. That's how I was calculating what the NPC would ask.
Puca 10-04-07, 12:51 PM	Right, but it isnt really like he can just pop in for a moment and cast the spell right? He has to be there and involved during the whole of the creation process? Thats why I think it would be a higher charge that that of just casting the spell. The time.
Merestil Haye 10-04-07, 07:56 PM	Right, but it isnt really like he can just pop in for a moment and cast the spell right? He has to be there and involved during the whole of the creation process? Thats why I think it would be a higher charge that that of just casting the spell. The time.I agree he has to be there for the whole of the creation process, yes. My argument is that 500gp per day is a natural amount for a caster to ask for, arising from the process of item crafting. Since we are thinking of a magic item as a product, it requires a certain investment in materials to carry out the creation process, a certain amount of xp and a certain set of spell energies. If the crafter was supplying all prerequisites for (say) a set of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, he needs 2,000gp worth of arcane materials, the xp and the energy from 1 Bull's Strength spell per day of crafting. At the end of four days he has an item which is valued at 4,000gp. Therefore the crafter has a net monetary profit of 2,000gp. 500gp per day. Now if for some bizarre reason the crafter can manage only three castings of the spell - maybe because he does not know the spell - and sets it aside for a few days while he hunts up a power source for the last day's work. A 5th level wizard agrees to help him by casting the spell. He might start off by demanding 500gp as his fee for the one day's work, because if he spent the day crafting for himself that is what he would have earned that day. Of course the original crafter can point out that he's not expending any of his own personal power (ie not losing xp), and counter with a lower offer. Considering that a scroll of Bull's Str costs 150gp, and should be fairly readily available in a city of any size, I'd probably settle for 300gp.
Nom 10-05-07, 07:27 AM	IConsidering that a scroll of Bull's Str costs 150gp, and should be fairly readily available in a city of any size, I'd probably settle for 300gp.The other way of looking at it is that the price of the scroll sets an upper limit, because at that point the creator can just buy scrolls (or even wands) instead.
meabolex 10-05-07, 07:55 AM	How confusing |: From under Creating Scrolls: The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. And from the introductory text in the chapter: Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). As long as I assume that the definition of a "creator" is the person who a) has the Scribe Scroll feat and b) uses experience to create the scroll, the only way a "creator" can have an "assistant" cast the spell to create a scroll is when the "creator" has the spell prepared/known that the "assistant" casts. Is this correct or am I missing yet more convoluted text? (:
runestar 10-06-07, 01:44 AM	As long as I assume that the definition of a "creator" is the person who a) has the Scribe Scroll feat and b) uses experience to create the scroll, the only way a "creator" can have an "assistant" cast the spell to create a scroll is when the "creator" has the spell prepared/known that the "assistant" casts. This is correct. Take for example a 1st lv party consisting of a wizard and a cleric. They can create scrolls of cure light wounds by having the wizard use his scribe scroll feat, and the cleric supplying the casting of said spell. The wizard pays the xp (gold is less important since you can pass it around among PCs). This is useful as it allows your party to create different types of magic items without having to take duplicate item creation feats.:)
Nom 10-06-07, 02:26 AM	The wizard pays the XPThis one point is not correct. Either character, or even a third party, can pay the XP as long as that character has a sufficiently high caster level for the scroll.
runestar 10-06-07, 04:19 AM	This one point is not correct. Either character, or even a third party, can pay the XP as long as that character has a sufficiently high caster level for the scroll. Can you provide a source for this. I had always thought that the person supplying the use of the item creation feat is automatically the "item creator" by default for purposes of determining who has to pay the xp.:confused:
Nom 10-06-07, 08:51 AM	Can you provide a source for this. I had always thought that the person supplying the use of the item creation feat is automatically the "item creator" by default for purposes of determining who has to pay the xp.:confused:DMG pg 215: If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator's level must be known. ... The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item.Doesn't make a lot of sense to "agree among themselves" if the status of creator is linked to the item creation feat.
Ace_of_time 10-06-07, 06:42 PM	I looked over this and don't think anyone said it. Knowing a spell and preparing it is the same thing. Once you cast the spell it leave your mind for good until you prepare it again. Baring feats. WotC has come up with a way for the party wizard to let the other party members pay the XP cost for items instead if he/she is making it for them. Can't remember where it was sorry. Might have been a feat or something. Scribing a scroll is writing a precast spell onto the paper, almost finished. Spellbook only hold the formula for the spell.
meabolex 10-07-07, 11:55 AM	Doesn't make a lot of sense to "agree among themselves" if the status of creator is linked to the item creation feat. Ah, the text comes from the Prerequisites section under Magic Item Descriptions. This information isn't present in the section covering magic item creation, so there's a clear problem. However, An item creation feat lets a spellcaster create a magic item of a certain type. This clearly implies that to be considered a "creator" for an item, you must have an item creation feat. Furthermore: To [create an item], you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half of this base price. Which clearly states that the person with the item creation feat pays the experience costs (as "You" in this case is the person taking the feat). So the only solution that unifies all the statements is that some of the text on p. 215 applies to multiple individuals with a specific item creation feat. For this text: If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s level must be known. The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item. Since only those who have an item creation feat may spend experience to pay an item (as shown above), if multiple people involved in the creation of the item have a common item creation feat for the item they're creating, they can choose which one will utilize their feat and spend experience. Simple enough solution for me (: I think I'll run it this way for now -- unless someone can find a contradiction.
Marcus Majarra 10-07-07, 02:38 PM	This clearly implies that to be considered a "creator" for an item, you must have an item creation feat. Actually, this doesn't clearly imply anything. It only implies that magic item creation requires, at the very least, a spellcaster and an item creation feat. Nowhere is it implied that both must meet in the same creature. Which clearly states that the person with the item creation feat pays the experience costs (as "You" in this case is the person taking the feat). Again, this is all speculation. All this confirms is that whomever is considered the creator must spend the experience points. You've yet to prove that whomever is considered the creator is the one providing the item creation feat. Essentially, the feat is no different from any other item creation requirement in that anyone can provide it. The only creation requirement that constitutes an exception is the caster level, which is provided by whomever is designated the creator (and ends up paying up the experience).
Nom 10-07-07, 04:59 PM	I agree with Marcus. Further, any arguments saying "the creator must" are weak. The text runs "the creator must do/have X, Y, Z (have item creation feat, expend spell, ...)". All this is then followed by the expanded rule "It is possible for more than one character to participate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the pre-requisites ..." (DMG pg 215). Except for the paragraph tying caster level to XP, no limitations are placed on how many characters can participate or what pre-requisites they can provide. Aside from the listed exception, they all count as "the creator".
meabolex 10-07-07, 05:56 PM	Actually, this doesn't clearly imply anything. It only implies that magic item creation requires, at the very least, a spellcaster and an item creation feat. Nowhere is it implied that both must meet in the same creature. I admit, you're correct here. However, we're talking about something very specific -- the XP cost must be paid by the person who has the item creation feat. I agree, in retrospect, that an item can have multiple "creators" and that only one of those creators must have the item creation feat. However, the issue involves experience directly. Again, this is all speculation. All this confirms is that whomever is considered the creator must spend the experience points. You've yet to prove that whomever is considered the creator is the one providing the item creation feat. Magic Item Compendium P. 232 The XP cost must always be paid by the character who supplies the item creation feat required by the item, no matter how many other characters cooperate in its creation. Is that clear enough? Or maybe we can ask Sage Advice (Andy Collins) to further clarify? (:
Marcus Majarra 10-07-07, 11:52 PM	Taking into account the MIC (I've yet to read the book as a whole), the creator becomes more clear: 1) The creator provides the appropriate item creation feat. 2) The creator provides the item's caster level. 3) The creator pays the experience points. Thus, a 3rd-level wizard can create a 3rd-level scroll of cure light wounds with the aid of a 1st-level cleric. All the cleric does is provide the spell requirement for the scroll. Experience is paid by the wizard.
Nom 10-08-07, 12:13 AM	Is that clear enough? Or maybe we can ask Sage Advice (Andy Collins) to further clarify? (::rolleyes: Oh, great! It's really annoying how many times this comes up: "Did you actually intend to change the rules, or is this just incompetence?". More with the various Sage Advice than with the rulebooks, although as this shows it occasionally happens with the books too. Edit: In fairness, I should ask (since I don't own MIC): do the MIC creation rules acknowledge (even implicitly) that they change the DMG rules in this matter?
meabolex 10-08-07, 12:42 AM	Thus, a 3rd-level wizard can create a 3rd-level scroll of cure light wounds with the aid of a 1st-level cleric. All the cleric does is provide the spell requirement for the scroll. Experience is paid by the wizard. I completely acknowledge the fact that this is splitting hairs -- and not at all a major departure from what I was reading before -- but since this is a rules forum about an issue that DMs will occasionally run into, it seems like the right place for me (as a DM) to find the answers to these annoying questions. Right now in my game a wizard is scribing scrolls and I *know* the minutiae of making scrolls will be dealt with pretty soon. Your example makes sense to me. Oh, great! It's really annoying how many times this comes up: "Did you actually intend to change the rules, or is this just incompetence?". More with the various Sage Advice than with the rulebooks, although as this shows it occasionally happens with the books too. Edit: In fairness, I should ask (since I don't own MIC): do the MIC creation rules acknowledge (even implicitly) that they change the DMG rules in this matter? Considering that the MIC was written by Andy Collins and that he wasn't specifically revising the DMG (he did the PH), I can see that his take on things would differ from the Noonan/Redman revision take. However, in this particularly narrow case I believe that the poor DMG wording and organization contributed to the problem. Why should I have to look at the magic item description section to learn something about how to make magic items? :confused:
Ace_of_time 10-08-07, 01:17 AM	Both of the people have to have the Feat in order to decide which one take the XP cost. If two people make a item and one has the feat and the other has the spells then the one with the feat takes the XP cost off. That part in the book is talking about if both people have the feat and each one is casting spells for the item then they would have to choose who is the item creator (there for paying the XP cost) and the other is just aiding in the precess. You can't be the creator of the item without have the feat and there for can't pay the XP cost of making said item. ( because you are not the creator)
Nom 10-08-07, 04:07 AM	Why should I have to look at the magic item description section to learn something about how to make magic items?I'll take the spirit rather than the letter of this question, since as written it's a bit like "why should I have to look in a glossary to find the meaning of game terms?". In the DMG, the magic item descriptions include the requirements to make them. This includes the pre-reqs. Thus, the rules about how to handle those pre-reqs are in the same place. Whether this is ideal - since it means that the rules on pre-reqs are on pg 215 and the verbiage on creation begins on pg 285 - is a different issue, but the rules aren't "obviously" out-of-place. I'm still a little unsure of the reason for the change. I can see flavour reasons to tie the feat and "creator" status together, but can't really see a strong gameplay argument. And if it's a "well, a bunch of people play this way, so we'll change it to that", it fails to account for those who do not and are now confused by two mutually contradictory sets of rules on the subject.
Gemstone 10-08-07, 04:58 AM	Can you provide a source for this. I had always thought that the person supplying the use of the item creation feat is automatically the "item creator" by default for purposes of determining who has to pay the xp.:confused: IIRC, there's an optional rule in some book (unearthed arcana?) that allows this.
Ace_of_time 10-08-07, 06:55 AM	Nothing on the table of contents. Thought I saw it online somewhere?
BobbyMac 10-09-07, 10:59 AM	There is a web enhancement to the Player's Handbook II called Magic Items: Transferring XP Costs (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a) that yall might find interesting...
Ace_of_time 10-09-07, 11:08 AM	Thanks, It was driving me nuts. My players wanted to like take 10% of the XP's they get and put it in a Item creation fund so they would have to minus off the XP cost from their reg XP. I had told them no at first but I'm still thinking about it. Doesn't seem like it could hurt anything.